Admitting ignorance can be a good thinghttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/admitting-ignorance-can-be-a-good-thing
Our rapid resource development has led to mass extinctions. Why don't we slow down?At the risk of sounding like I’m a bubble or two off plumb, I’d like to ask our natural resource decision-makers to try something new as we start 2013. I’d like them to decide things based on what they don’t know, rather than on what they do. If it seems counter-intuitive to plan the future on a lack of knowledge, please consider the record we’ve compiled so far, starting in the Northwest.

After using gillnets and fish wheels to decimate the almost limitless salmon runs of the Columbia River during the 1800s, we used what we knew -- commonly referred to as the “best available science” -- to build hatcheries and hatch billions of eggs. The best available science held that all salmon of a given species were essentially the same, so there was no attempt to release the fry and smolts into their natal streams.

After more than a century of developing fish that were progressively weaker, more prone to disease and more vulnerable to predation than their wild cousins, we finally began to use modern hatcheries to supplement wild runs, rather than replace them. Perhaps in another century or so, we’ll be able to undo the harm we caused based on what we thought we knew.

While we were destroying the greatest run of salmon on earth, we were also beginning a frenzied search for precious metals. That search left great scars on the land, turned streambeds inside out, and polluted waterways that are still a mess today. In fairness, I doubt the scientists of the day even pretended to know what to expect from large-scale mining. By the mid-20th century we knew better, though, and began implementing controls on older, existing methods. Unfortunately, those controls didn’t help us deal with new technology.

Heap-leach mines use a cyanide or sulfuric acid solution to extract gold, copper and nickel from crushed ore. The pregnant solution then drifts down to an impermeable layer where it is collected so the metals can be removed. The scientists, planners and mine owners knew the layer was impermeable … until it wasn’t. They knew there was no risk … until there was. Unfortunately, leaks weren’t typically discovered until the nearby groundwater was poisoned.

Nowadays, with increased environmental awareness and media coverage, it is more difficult for corporations to damage the environment, but only slightly. Because even if they can’t prove their activity is benign, corporations can still say, “If you don’t like what I’m doing, prove it’s harmful. Until you can provide incontrovertible proof, I’m going to continue, because, based on our best available science, I’m doing no harm. And you’re just an hysterical homeowner, environmentalist, troublemaker.”

The timber industry has a long history of such attitudes. Although government biologists were raising concerns about old-growth-dependent wildlife species in the 1970s, they were sidelined by the continual demand for data. “There is no definitive data showing spotted owls and marbled murrelets are affected by the loss of old-growth timber,” said the loggers. And when the data became available, they simply refocused their argument. “Well, OK. Spotted owls in Northern California are covered by your study, but do we know if owls in Oregon and Washington are affected?”

Because of these delays, the timber companies were able to delay sanctions until they’d harvested all but a tiny fraction of the Northwest’s old-growth timber.

What if we’d admitted, from the beginning, that we really didn’t know much about salmon? Would we have continued to flood the rivers with damaged fry and smolts? Or might we have stopped and taken a look around and decided that maybe Mother Nature knew somewhat more than we did? If the mining engineers had admitted their ignorance of the long-term impacts of their actions, would they have continued to do the damage they did? Or did our utter dependence on the best available science cause them to push forward? Would a little humility, a little uncertainty, have slowed the timber industry down, made its decision-makers question themselves and their legacy?

Now consider fracking –– hydraulically fracturing the earth’s crust in a massive search for oil and gas. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to approach something as potentially catastrophic as fracking by taking it slowly for a few years, thereby giving us time to evaluate the risks?

Instead, the oil and gas companies are fracking wherever they can, full-speed ahead, just as if they really had a clue about what they were doing and what might happen in a serious accident. “There is no proof of any danger to water supplies,” they say, “and no proof of any danger of earthquakes. And if you don’t like it -- show us your data.”

]]>No publisherWildlifeWriters on the Range2013/01/15 07:12:10 GMT-6ArticleTed Nugent doesn’t speak for mehttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/ted-nugent-doesnt-speak-for-me
Hunters, gun owners and NRA members need an articulate spokesman, but a
loudmouth like Ted Nugent is not the ideal candidate.I’m a hunter, and I know that hunters need a spokesperson. We need someone with a lifetime of experience who speaks with authority about preserving public lands and the wild animals living there that we love to hunt. We need someone whose personal magnetism generates interest simply by speaking on the subject of hunting.

I just don’t want my spokesman to be Ted Nugent.

It doesn’t bother me much that the former rock musician is abrasive and obnoxious. If being obnoxious were illegal, several of my friends would be imprisoned.

It doesn’t bother me that Nugent receives media attention far out of proportion to his actual importance. He sold 30 million albums, so has earned his time in the public eye far more honestly than Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

It doesn’t bother me that Nugent dresses in American flag-themed clothing and styles himself an American patriot even though as a young man he worked very hard to avoid the draft and the Vietnam War. Our country seems to be full of people just like him … late-in-life self-righteous types who are more willing to risk their sons and daughters in combat than they were to go themselves.

It doesn’t even bother me that Nugent has somehow become a standard-bearer for a significant number of American gun owners and hunters. I’m sure stranger things have happened, though I can’t think of any right now. His followers revel in Nugent’s out-of-control, stream-of-unconsciousness method of speaking, where logic and clear thinking take a backseat to foul-mouthed invective and shock value.

When outdoor writer Jim Zumbo’s naïvely derogatory comment about “black guns” -- semi-automatic rifles that are military knockoffs -- set off an Internet firestorm and threatened the destruction of Zumbo’s communications empire, it was Nugent who rode to the rescue. Zumbo had denounced the weapons as “terrorist rifles” and the backlash was ferocious. Nugent invited Zumbo to his Texas ranch where, in a scene eerily mindful of communist re-education camps, he instructed the browbeaten writer on the benefits of the guns. Subsequently Nugent declared Zumbo rehabilitated and called for forgiveness. Sure enough, forgiveness happened and Zumbo’s wide-ranging framework of magazines, television and speaking engagements was restored.

It does disturb me a little that, as a featured speaker, Nugent lit up the most recent National Rifle Association convention with a clear threat against the President of the United States. “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Nugent has always been a showboat and a blowhard; the Secret Service needed only 20 minutes to identify him as such, though I suspect they might have been a little tougher had they not had some recent troubles of their own. Certainly Nugent is not a serious threat, but even blowhards can occasionally incite others to violence.

It’s hard for me to get excited about Ted Nugent because he just seems so … inconsequential. But because I’m a hunter, a few things I’ve learned about him are disturbing. He is a serial poacher and as such, a thief. In 2010, Nugent pleaded “no contest” in California to using bait to kill an undersized buck deer and then not properly tagging it. He was fined $1,750 and is prohibited from hunting in California until June of this year.

More recently, on April 24, 2012, Nugent pled guilty to transportation of a bear he had illegally killed in Alaska. This latest infraction will cost him a $10,000 fine, put him in probation for two years and prohibit him from hunting in Alaska or on U.S. Forest Service land for one year. Nugent protested that he wasn’t aware of the state regulation he’d violated, which makes him either a pretty dumb guy or a liar. You make the call.

It also bothers me that Nugent is on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. The NRA, which protects our right to bear arms, also claims to represent hunters. As such, their directors should be held to the highest standard of hunting behavior. It will be interesting to see if the law-abiding, ultra-patriotic NRA will do the right thing and remove Nugent from their board.

Or will the NRA leadership continue to support a twice-convicted game-law violator who openly threatens the president of the United States?

Pat Wray is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He lives in Corvallis, Oregon.

]]>No publisherRecreationWriters on the Range2012/05/24 01:00:00 GMT-6ArticleA conversation I look forward to having with the NRAhttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-conversation-i-look-forward-to-having-with-the-nra
A lifetime member of the NRA is skeptical of the group's paranoia about President Obama’s gun-control plans."Hello, Mr. Wray. This is John from the National Rifle Association. How are you doing tonight?"

"Fine, thanks."

"Mr. Wray, as a Life Member of the NRA, I know you are concerned with our right to bear arms. Are you aware of Obama's under-the-radar effort to destroy our Second Amendment rights?"

"You mean President Obama?"

"Yes, sir."

"Say it."

"President Obama."

"Good. Now, for the remainder of this conversation, every time you mention his name, the word 'president' will precede it. Is that clear?"

"Yes, sir."

"Good. Now, what were you complaining about?"

"Well, er, President Obama is conducting an under-the-radar attack on our right to bear arms."

"What makes it under the radar?"

"His administration is not talking about it."

"Then how do you know what he plans to do?"

"Well, Mr. Wray, you have to look no further than his appointees. Consider that Attorney General Eric Holder is on record as wanting to bring back the Clinton ban on assault weapons."

"Attorney General Holder brought that up within a month of his appointment three years ago and was quickly shut down by the president. I haven't heard a peep since. What else you got?"

"Um, he appointed two of the most rabidly anti-gun Supreme Court justices in American history, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Given the advanced ages of several of the other judges, a second term may well give President Obama the chance to appoint three more justices."

"So, our liberal president appointed two liberal justices. What a surprise! I guess we'll have to hope that all of his appointees grow an independent streak and decide their cases according to our Constitution. I worry about the court becoming unbalanced as well, but it's hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights."

"Mr. Wray, are you aware that this administration reversed long-standing American opposition and now supports an International Arms Trade Treaty that will ban or restrict our gun ownership in this country? O...er...President Obama knows he can't get restrictive gun rules through the U.S. Congress so he's going to come at our guns through the United Nations."

"You know, I've been seeing those emails, so I started doing some checking. It turns out that the U.N. treaty is aimed at restricting dealers who provide arms to terrorists, insurgencies, rebellions and civil wars. There is specific wording in place, put there by the United States, to protect national sovereignty regarding firearms purchase and ownership.

"But Mr. Wray, our people have done extensive research into the administration's goals and we know that President Obama wants to restrict gun ownership."

"Sure, you know that even though all he's ever said is that he supports the Second Amendment and has no plans to take anyone's guns. In fact, he's signed a law permitting guns in national parks and signed another law allowing guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains."

"Those were just a diversion, Mr. Wray, a smokescreen to hide his true objectives."

"So, even when President Obama does exactly what you guys want, signs laws that you had a hand in writing, you still don't give him credit. Did all of you intern at Pravda, or what? Here's what I think. I am truly worried about gun control. I've been in Great Britain and Australia and Canada and talked with the people there who've had their guns taken away. I know it can be done and there are people here who want to do the same thing. That's why I'm a life member of the NRA. But the way the NRA demonizes the President and creates crises where there are none is abhorrent to me.

"And that's not all. When then-Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot his friend while quail hunting, the NRA went totally silent. I know the Bush administration was a big supporter of the right to bear arms, but for an organization like the NRA, which runs the largest firearms safety-training program in the world, to roll over and play dead rather than criticize an administration official's obvious hunting error was pathetic. This was an incredibly powerful teaching moment, but you bailed.

"In addition, John, by playing on the fears of gun owners, the NRA created the mass hysteria following President Obama's election that resulted in ammunition and reloading supplies disappearing off the shelves for more than a year. You did that, and all you can say now is, 'This time he's really going after our guns!'

Pat Wray is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He lives in Corvallis, Oregon, with his wife, Debbie, and three hunting dogs. He can be argued with at patwray@comcast.net.

]]>No publisherPoliticsWriters on the Range2012/03/01 02:00:00 GMT-6ArticleThe NRA needs someone like mehttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/the-nra-needs-someone-like-me
Pat Wray is running for the board of the National Rifle Association because he believes it needs to start defending the wildlife and habitat that hunters need – not just the guns they use.Like every hunter worthy of the name, I want to protect our hunting heritage so men and women many years from now can experience the same love, awe and respect for wild animals that I've been privileged to know. But the two bedrock requirements for that to happen are the health of animal populations and the health of the lands on which they depend. Without those two, nothing else we do will make a difference, and of the two, the land is most important.

If our lands are healthy, wild animals will proliferate. If the land is made uninhabitable by excessive development or natural resource exploitation, wild animals will be lost, no matter how pure our intentions.

That's why I've decided to run for a position on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. How, you might ask, will being an NRA director help me preserve our hunting heritage? Simple. If I have a voice at the table, I have a shot at stopping the incredible damage the NRA is doing to the long-term prospects for hunting in this country.

Ever since the NRA convinced hunters that the organization protected their interests, it has taken money from hunters and funneled it into the coffers of politicians they could count on as dependable voters for gun rights. The problem, of course, is that many of the strongest gun rights advocates care nothing at all about the health of public lands or wild animals. The NRA's ability to take money from hunters and use it in ways that will ultimately ruin hunting constitutes one of the most dishonest public relations campaigns ever perpetrated on the American people.

Consider the support the NRA provided to disgraced former Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., prior to his co-sponsorship of a bill permitting the sale of millions of acres of public land to mining companies. Consider also, NRA's support for politicians like Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, who has made a career of opening up public lands for private exploitation. Craig remains a member of the NRA board of directors. We also shouldn't forget the NRA's aggressive and public support of the Bush administration's effort to remove federal protection for 58.5 million acres of Inventoried roadless areas, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that roads and traffic diminish wildlife populations and hunting opportunities. These examples, and others too numerous to mention, illustrate that the NRA hasbeen willing to sacrifice anything in its quest for Second Amendment votes -- including our hunting heritage.

I am a life member of the organization. I fully support its efforts to protect our right to bear arms, and I want the organization to be aggressive in its work. But the NRA in its present form is incapable of working simultaneously on behalf of hunters and gun rights. Pretending otherwise is a blatant, if well-camouflaged, lie.

In my opinion, the board of directors should:

*Demand that the organization divest itself of the bloated bureaucracy that's ostensibly devoted to the welfare of hunters and hunting. Create a new, entirely separate hunting-based organization that succeeds or falls on its own. We've had enough institutionalized deceit.

*Require honesty in NRA editorials and messages. The group's misleading and inflammatory writings have created paranoia and suspicion among gun owners. This shameless fear-mongering, coupled with intense fund raising, has pushed hundreds of thousands of reasonable people away from the NRA and outside the conversation we need to hold about responsible gun ownership. We need those thoughtful people back in.

*Stop the endless search for enemies of the NRA. Not everyone who disagrees with the NRA is the devil incarnate. Require the organization to work with politicians who care about the environment, wildlife and wild lands in addition to their support of our Second Amendment rights. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There's my platform. Am I electable? It's a fair question. I have been blasted in several NRA publications because I have publicly disagreed with its positions, its campaigns and its political relationships. But I'm not alone. Many other NRA members agree with me, and if my name and platform are placed before them, I think I have a reasonable chance. Even if I am not elected this time, the discussion will at least force an honest self-examination of the organization's way of doing business.

It might make the NRA leadership answer the question, ‘Is the future of hunting an acceptable sacrifice on the altar of the Second Amendment?'

Pat Wray is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He is an avid gun owner, reloader and hunter. The author of A Chukar Hunter's Companion, he lives with his wife and three hunting dogs in Corvallis, Oregon.

]]>No publisherPoliticsHuntingGunsWriters on the Range2008/08/25 01:00:00 GMT-6ArticleA hunter goes lobbyinghttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/17539
A group of hunters and fishermen visit Sen. Gordon Smith
(R-Oregon) to ask him to sign on as a co-sponsor of the
Lieberman-Warner bill to control greenhouse gas
emissions.

A few weeks ago, I set
out with a small group to lobby Oregon’s Republican Sen.
Gordon Smith. The visit was set up by the national Wildlife
Federation, and our goal -- a long shot -- was to convince the
senator to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Lieberman-Warner bill to
control greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States.”

We hoped to convince him that this bipartisan bill is our
best chance to reduce pollution to the levels necessary to avoid
catastrophic effects on our planet. If enacted, the law would
reduce pollutants 70 percent by the 2050. It targets not just power
plants but all major pollution emitters, and the bill’s lever
is “cap and trade,” meaning the government will set a
cap on the tons of pollution each company can release into the
environment. Companies that exceed their limits will have to
purchase credits from companies that have reduced their pollution
below allowed levels.”

Sitting in Sen.
Smith’s comfortable office, one by one we told him why we
cared. Buzz Ramsey, a legend in Northwest fishing circles,
explained that glacial melting on Mount Hood has released hundreds
of thousands of tons of sediment into the Sandy River, filling 25
foot-deep holes to within six feet of the surface. When spring
chinook arrive from the ocean in the spring, they spend months
resting and waiting in deep holes for fall, when they spawn. But if
the deep holes are gone, gone too is the chinooks’ ability to
escape from summer heat. Increased water temperatures lead to
diseases and death, and the few that survive to spawn may lose all
their eggs to the suffocating sediment. “

Jack
Glass, a fishing guide in the Portland area, gave up an $800 day
with clients to tell why he feels so strongly about the
Lieberman-Warner bill. Jack’s 24-year-old son is also a
guide, and Jack worries about his son’s future in the
business. He put a face on the people likely to be economic victims
of global warming.

Liz Hamilton, the executive director
of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, reminded the
senator of the courage he’d shown in previous contentious
issues. More than once, he has taken unpopular stances against the
Republican Party. She asked him to do so again, explaining this
bill is something we all need. Liz is a tough, savvy operator, and
it was obvious he valued her opinion.

I was there as a
hunter. Historically, we hunters have been a Republican choir, but
we are reading more, learning more, and becoming more and more
aware of the threats facing the habitats on which hunting depends.
We recognize the peril facing our future in the outdoors. I told
the senator that many hunters no longer blindly follow the voting
guidance of the National Rifle Association, which bases its
political stands on adherence to the Second Amendment. We have
watched the NRA recommend election of environmentally bankrupt
politicians just because they supported the right to bear arms;
then we saw those same politicians attempt to sell our public lands
to the highest bidder. Now, we’re not just going to
“vote our sport.” We’re going to vote our
consciences and our environment, too.”

I said
hunters are looking for people with vision who can see beyond
temporary economic impacts to a world where our grandchildren can
thrive and where the outdoors is still great. We’re looking
for someone who will stand up for the Lieberman-Warner Bill.
“We’re hoping you are one of those people,” I
concluded. “

The senator smiled and said the best
he could promise was to vote for cloture, meaning he would vote to
place a time limit on the length of time senators who oppose the
bill can filibuster. Sen. Smith’s smile was bright and his
manner friendly. But it was clear to us that he would not
co-sponsor the bill and would probably not even vote for it. All he
would do is vote against letting it die by filibuster. The members
of some 700 hunting, fishing and sporting groups who care about
wildlife and the West are still looking for people to lead us.

Pat Wray is a contributor to Writers on the
Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org).
A former Marine helicopter pilot in Corvallis, Oregon, he
is a freelance writer who loves to hunt.]]>No publisherWildlifeHuntingWriters on the RangeEssaysArticleWhat’s worse than an unethical hunter?http://www.hcn.org/wotr/17317
Pat Wray loves hunting and agrees that off-road vehicles
have their place, but, he says, hunting and ORVs do not go
together.

All-terrain vehicles
aren’t good or bad in themselves; it’s all about
context. When my son was lost for an entire night in the mountains
of northeast Oregon, search and rescue volunteers from Union County
showed up on their ATVs and set out to bring him home. I was never
so glad to see machinery in my life. They helped find him later
that morning.

Then there are those other occasions. A few
years ago, I was slogging through deep snow near the Malheur River
east of Juntura, Ore., in search of chukars -- Eurasian partridges
-- when I heard the distinctive growl of ATVs. I looked up to see
two of them cresting a hill above me.

I had a bad feeling
about their presence in a place with no established trails. My
concern was proven justified a few minutes later when I cut across
their track. The two machines had simply driven straight uphill
from the river, taking advantage of the deep snow to drive on top
of sagebrush and bunchgrasses. The weight of the machines crushed
the sagebrush, leaving a trail of shattered branches and trunks.
Where the snow was shallow, tires had cut through to the soil,
gouging it out and spraying it across the snow.

By the
time I headed back that evening, the ATVs were gone. They had, for
the most part, followed the same track down the hill. At least they
hadn’t carved a new track across the virgin desert, but their
second trip completed the destruction of the sagebrush, breaking it
down so completely that when the snow melted, it would no longer be
high enough to prevent ATV travel. Predictably, ATV drivers began
using the track regularly, and now it is a deeply rutted scar from
which hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of dirt washes directly
toward the Malheur River.

Another time, after I had
killed an elk near Enterprise, Ore., and was hiking back to my
vehicle to pick up a backpack to begin hauling the meat, I met the
rancher who owned the land on which I’d been hunting, and he
offered to help bring the animal out -- an offer I quickly
accepted. We hauled the elk up to an established trail, loaded it
onto his ATV trailer and pulled it back to his house. The rancher
and his machine saved me four roundtrip hikes of three miles each.
It would have taken me a long, exhausting day.

Last year
was a different experience. I was hunting chukars on the Owyhee
River down in southeastern Oregon. I came up out of the canyon far
from any road and worked along the rim into the wind with my
pointer, Sadie. The dog became almost immediately
“birdy” and began moving slowly and carefully. Her
careful approach didn’t help. A covey of 25 birds flushed
almost 100 yards away and bailed off into the canyon. Bad luck, I
thought. Two hundred yards later, a second covey of similar size
flushed wild, this time nearly 125 yards away. Over the next mile
the same thing happened again and again.

Then I found the
cause: ATV tracks running along the canyon rim. Hunters using ATVs
were busting through the desert, creating their own trails so they
didn’t have to walk while they hunted some of the best chukar
ground in North America. And it was flat! What incredible laziness!
The birds had been harassed into a level of paranoia I’d not
seen anywhere else in the state, even where hunter numbers were
much higher.

It’s true that most of the habitat
damage done by ATVs isn’t caused by hunters, but by a small
percentage of recreational riders. Their concept of the outdoors is
a warped desire for a place where they can go fast without regard
for laws or for anyone else around them. But hunters are far from
innocent. Far too many have made the unethical use of ATVs the
linchpin of their hunting experience, and instead of confining
their driving to established trails as the laws require,
they’ve succumbed to the lure of the easy way.

“The hill is too steep, I’ll just make my own
trail.” “I’ll just ride along until the dogs
point the birds. Then I’ll get out and walk.” In
following rationalizations like this, they damage both the game
animals they pursue and the land on which wildlife depends.

In their slimy devotion to laziness, these hunters make
one thing crystal-clear: The only thing worse than an unethical
hunter is an unethical hunter on an ATV. And hunters like that are
too stupid to know what they have lost.

Pat Wray
is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country
News (hcn.org). He is an avid hunter and outdoor writer who lives
in Corvallis, Oregon.]]>No publisherRecreationWriters on the RangeEssaysArticleWhat’s the NRA’s beef with roadless areas?http://www.hcn.org/issues/314/16060
A hunter and member of the National Rifle Association is
angry at the way the group puts gun ownership above roadless areas,
wildlife, and huntingI am a hunter who cares deeply about our hunting heritage and our ability to pass it on. Like most hunters, I consider organizations that work on behalf of hunting my friends, and those that work against hunting my adversaries. So I don’t like it when the lines become blurred. And today the lines are blurry indeed in regards to the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The NRA is one of the most effective lobbies in America. It has protected our right to keep and bear arms for more than 100 years, and I have been a member for more than 20 of those years. I am thankful for what the NRA has done. More than that, I believe in the NRA.

And there’s the rub. Because I and millions of others like me believe in what the NRA does on behalf of our right to own guns, we are inclined to believe the group when it tells us it’s standing up for our right to hunt. This is a dangerous assumption, because when the interests of gun ownership and hunting diverge, the NRA always comes down on the side of guns.

Not that the NRA hasn’t done good things for hunters. It helped introduce legislation to allow hunting on Sundays in states that prohibit it. It’s working to reduce the minimum hunting age in states like Wisconsin. It supports No Net (hunting) Loss legislation in several states, which will require them to compensate for closing state land to hunting by opening other state land. But this is a lot like fancy window dressing.

Behind the window, the NRA aligns itself with politicians who care little about the land or wildlife, but can be counted on to deliver votes against gun control. This includes politicians like Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who serves on the NRA Board of Directors. Craig was a primary supporter of the Bush administration’s recent decision to remove federal protection from 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in our national forests, returning their fate to the tender mercies of individual states. The NRA regularly parrots Craig’s message about our roadless areas, interchanging the terms wilderness, roadless areas and road closures, confusing the public and convincing hunters that their hunting access will be lost in all of those areas.

In fact, land in all of those areas remains open to hunting; only motorized access is restricted to various degrees. In fact, hunting and fishing are usually better in roadless areas. Exhaustive scientific studies confirm that elk, deer, bears, mountain goats, bighorn sheep and trout do much better in areas away from active roads. They grow bigger, live longer and reproduce more effectively. This is not under debate. People who contest it will probably also argue that cigarette smoke is good for you.

Perhaps the NRA thinks, as President Bush seems to, that if you raise bluegills in a pond, keep white-tailed deer in a fenced enclosure and feed wild turkeys in your backyard, you are a friend to wildlife. That simplistic approach doesn’t work here in the West, where our big game and game fish species adapt poorly to human encroachment. The problem is not that the NRA leadership acts aggressively to protect the Second Amendment. That is their mission. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking that this helps hunting. All too often, hunters are naive enough to believe them.

Here’s the bottom line: If the Bush administration, with the active support of the NRA, builds roads into our previously roadless public lands, the premier hunting and fishing once available there will decline until these areas will be no different than places you can drive to now.

I know a man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice, because he needs lots of them to support his snakes.

We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those enemies. Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a snake actually helping a mouse? We’re being tricked.

Pat Wray is a writer in Corvallis, Oregon, a former Marine helicopter pilot, and an avid hunter and fisherman with a wife and three dogs.

]]>No publisherWildlifeForestsHuntingEssays2006/01/23 01:00:00 GMT-6ArticleWhy one hunter is fed up with the NRAhttp://www.hcn.org/wotr/16032
The writer is a longtime hunter who’s fed up with
the National Rifle Association I am a hunter. I care deeply
about our hunting heritage and our ability to pass it on. Like most
hunters, I consider organizations that work on behalf of hunting my
friends, and those that work against hunting my adversaries. Like
most hunters, I am confused when the lines become blurred. And
today the lines are blurry indeed in regards to the National Rifle
Association (NRA).

The NRA is one of the most effective
lobbies in America. It has protected our right to keep and bear
arms for more than 100 years, and I have been a member for more
than 20 of those years. I am thankful for what the NRA has done.
More than that, I believe in the NRA.

And there’s
the rub. Because I and millions of others like me believe in what
the NRA does on behalf of our right to own guns, we are inclined to
believe it when it tells us it’s standing up for our right to
hunt. This is a dangerous idea, because where the interests of gun
ownership and hunting diverge, I am seeing that the NRA always
comes down on the side of guns.

Not that the NRA
hasn’t done good things for hunters. It helped introduce
legislation to allow hunting on Sundays in states that presently
prohibit it. It’s working to reduce the minimum hunting age
in states like Wisconsin. It supports No Net (hunting) Loss
legislation in several states, which will require states to open
state land for hunting when other state land is closed. But this is
a lot like glitter on a window.

Behind the window, the
NRA aligns itself with politicians who care little about the land
or wildlife, but who will deliver votes against gun control. This
includes politicians like Republican Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who
serves on the NRA board of directors. Craig was a primary supporter
of the Bush administration’s action removing federal
protection of 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in
our national forests and returning their fate to the tender mercies
of individual states. The NRA regularly parrots Craig’s
message about our roadless areas, interchanging the terms
wilderness, roadless areas and road closures, which confuses the
public and convinces hunters that their hunting access will be lost
in all of these areas.

In fact, land covered by any of
these three designations is open to hunting; only motorized access
is restricted to various degrees. In fact, hunting and fishing are
usually better in roadless areas. Exhaustive scientific studies
confirm that elk, deer, bears, mountain goats, bighorn sheep and
trout do much better in areas away from active roads. They grow
bigger, live longer and reproduce more effectively. This is not
under debate. People who contest it will probably also argue that
cigarette smoke is good for you.

Perhaps the NRA thinks,
as President Bush seems to think, that if you raise bluegills in a
pond, white-tailed deer in a fenced enclosure and feed wild turkeys
in your backyard, you are a friend to wildlife. That simplistic
approach doesn’t work here in the Western states, where our
big game and game-fish species adapt poorly to human encroachment.

The problem is not that the NRA leadership acts
aggressively to protect the Second Amendment. It is their mission.
The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking that this
helps hunting. All too often, hunters are foolish enough to believe
them

Here’s the bottom line: If the Bush
administration, with the active support of the NRA, builds roads
into our previously roadless public lands, the premier hunting and
fishing once available there will decline until these areas will be
just the same as places you can drive to now.

I know a
man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he
raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice.
He wants them breeding regularly, because he needs lots of them to
support his snakes.

We hunters are the NRA’s mice.
They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s
always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So
they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are
enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those
enemies. Think about it. When was the last time you heard of a
mouse actually helping a snake?

Pat Wray is a
contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High
Country News (hcn.org). He is a writer in Corvallis,
Oregon, a former Marine helicopter pilot, and an avid hunter and
fisherman with a wife and three dogs.